But even without them, it makes little sense to have a potentially functioning, commercially viable plot of land sitting empty.
“It makes little sense” and yet it happens all of the time precisely because unlike the fictional policy set you concocted for your argument, we actually don’t incentivize people to make the best use of their land through property taxes.
Most localities in the US tax land improvements instead of the land itself, which is the exact opposite of what you were saying we do.
The portion of the tax due to land value in and of itself is paltry compared to the tax collected on land improvements.
People living in condos have no actual land they own and yet are taxed a percentage of the resale value of the improvement (i.e. what they actually own) yearly.
Just because you have no idea how property taxes work doesn’t mean that they work the way you dreamed up.
When you get a bill for your taxes it itemizes the amount paid to land value vs the amount paid due to improvements. Want to take a guess which amount is bigger?
I’ve always seen the same tax rate on land value as improvement value. And yes, I do know how property taxes work. I pay them in three states, you arrogant child.
Even if the rates are identical, the amounts are lower because “unimproved” land has less “fair market value”, humble grampy!
In California, the property taxes also don’t even rise with the value of property generally. So someone newly buying a condo will pay much, much more in property taxes than say someone that holds a vacant lot for decades…like there are in Oakland…where they had to pass a ballot measure to start taxing people for holding onto vacant lots… Which according to you could never exist…cuz of property taxes.
“It makes little sense” and yet it happens all of the time precisely because unlike the fictional policy set you concocted for your argument, we actually don’t incentivize people to make the best use of their land through property taxes.
Most localities in the US tax land improvements instead of the land itself, which is the exact opposite of what you were saying we do.
I’ve never seen a property tax scheme which isn’t partly based on the land value. So…
The portion of the tax due to land value in and of itself is paltry compared to the tax collected on land improvements.
People living in condos have no actual land they own and yet are taxed a percentage of the resale value of the improvement (i.e. what they actually own) yearly.
Just because you have no idea how property taxes work doesn’t mean that they work the way you dreamed up.
When you get a bill for your taxes it itemizes the amount paid to land value vs the amount paid due to improvements. Want to take a guess which amount is bigger?
I’ve always seen the same tax rate on land value as improvement value. And yes, I do know how property taxes work. I pay them in three states, you arrogant child.
Even if the rates are identical, the amounts are lower because “unimproved” land has less “fair market value”, humble grampy!
In California, the property taxes also don’t even rise with the value of property generally. So someone newly buying a condo will pay much, much more in property taxes than say someone that holds a vacant lot for decades…like there are in Oakland…where they had to pass a ballot measure to start taxing people for holding onto vacant lots… Which according to you could never exist…cuz of property taxes.